As Oneida Eye has reported, Generation Clean Fuels, LLC, ACF Services, LLC, and ACF Leasing, LLC, are currently suing Oneida Seven Generations Corp., Green Bay Renewable Energy, LLC (which is owned by OSGC), and the Oneida Tribe of Indians of Wisconsin for $397.7 million. (ACF appears to stand for ‘Arland Clean Fuels,’ the former name of what is now known as Generation Clean Fuels.)
- March 6, 2014 Complaint & Exhibits, Cook County Case No. 14-L-2768, ACF Leasing, ACF Services & Generation Clean Fuels vs. Green Bay Renewable Energy, Oneida Seven Generations Corp. & Oneida Tribe of Indians of Wisconsin
As it turns out, Generation Clean Fuels lost a lawsuit filed against them by an investor who was told that their $250,000 investment in ‘plastics-to-oil’ schemes would result in $1.75 million in returns plus $2 million in royalty payments, for a total of $3.75 million, as stated in the Royalty Agreement exhibit attached to the following Complaint filed in Jefferson Co. Case No. 2013CV322, David J. Wolf vs. Arland/Generation Clean Fuels, LLC, which is similar to the Complaint filed in Jefferson Co. Case No. 2012CV906, David J. Wolf vs. Arland Clean Fuels, LLC.
Here are some excerpts:
2. Defendant Arland Clean Fuels, LLC (“ACF”) is a Colorado limited liability corporation with, on information and belief, a principal place of business located at 630 Davis Street, Suite 300, Evanston, Cook County, Illinois 60201.
3. On information and belief Defendant Generation Clean Fuels, LLC (“GCF”) is a Delaware limited liability corporation with a principal place of business located at 630 Davis Street, Suite 300, Evanston, Cook County, Illinois 60201.
4. On information and belief Defendant Eric Decator is an adult citizen and resident of the State of Illinois. On information and belief Mr. Decator is an owner, member, manager, director, and/or officer of ACF and GCF each of which maintains a a principal place of business located at 630 Davis Street, Suite 300, Evanston, Cook County, Illinois 60201. …
8. On or about March 12, 2012, Mr. Wolf and ACF executed a written contractual agreement, entitled Royalty Agreement (hereinafter the “Agreement”) a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit A. Pursuant to the Agreement, Mr. Wolf agreed to pay ACF the sum of $250,000.00 (the “Investment Amount”). The Agreement expressly stated that the express purpose of the Investment Amount was to assist ACF in paying for expenses related to the production and placement of oil producing equipment (the “Equipment.”). …
13. On information and belief, the Equipment became fully operational and reached full production in 2012.
14. To date, Mr. Wolf has received no quarterly Return Payments from ACF. …
16. To date, ACF has made no interest payments to Mr. Wolf for amounts owed due to its failure to make timely Royalty Agreement Payments.
17. On January 10, 2013, Mr. Decator represented to Plaintiff that ACF had little or no assets of its own, and that he has commingled his personal funds to finance the operations of Defendants, including without limitation, using his personal funds to pay the payroll of ACF.
18. On information and belief, ACF and GCF are shell entitites with no assets. As a consequence of Mr. Decator’s failure to observe the necessary corporate formalities by, among other things, comingling his personal assets with those of the companies, he is not veiled from personal liability for the debts and obligations to Plaintiff. …
38. On March 19, 2013, in pleadings filed with the Jefferson County Circuit Court, ACF represented that ACF is now operating as GCF.
39. On information and belief, Mr. Decator has transfered the assets of ACF to GCF, himself, or some other entity in which his is an insider, or caused the same to be done.
40. On information and belief, ACF did not receive reasonably equivalent value in exchange for the assets transferred.
41. On information and belief, ACF was insolvent at the time of the transfer, or became insolvent as a consequence thereof. …
45. On information and belief, in breach of his duty Mr. Decator caused the assets of ACF to be transferred to himself, GCF, or another entity in which he is an insider, in violation of his duties to ACF’s creditors. …
50. On information and belief, Mr. Decator knew or should have known that after giving effect to such distribution and/or transfer, all liabilities of ACF exceeded the fair value of the assets of ACF.
Compare and contrast the statement that “ACF and GCF are shell entities with no assets” to the statement in ACF/GCF’s lawsuit against the Oneida Tribe that “[Green Bay Renewable Energy] is a mere facade for the operations of OSGC and the ONEIDA TRIBE.”
Is ACF/GCF’s $397.7 million lawsuit against GBRE/OSGC/Oneida Tribe simply a shell game operation suing another shell game operation?
ACF/Generation ‘Clean’ Fuels & OSGC/Green Bay ‘Renewable’ Energy hard at ‘work’
Remember when BC Chair Ed Delgado said that he asked his volunteer Elder Advisor, Yvonne Metivier, to look into who OSGC’s 1201 O’Hare Blvd. tenants were? Ed vouched that “they do not appear to be johnny-come-lately type companies. They are companies with a long history who seem legitimate[.] They are long-standing and legitimate[.]”
Yet page 6 of the Complaint filed by ACF Services, ACF Leasing & Generation Clean Fuels against OSGC, GBRE & the Oneida Tribe says, “GBRE, OSGC and the ONEIDA TRIBE were informed prior to December 15, 2013 that the Project would constitute the launch of the businesses of [Generation Clean Fuels], ACF Leasing and ACF Services and the consequences to the businesses of [Generation Clean Fuels], ACF Leasing and ACF Services if the Project did not proceed in accordance with the Agreement.”
Newly launched businesses promising investors $3.75 million in seven years for a $250k investment and claiming that the companies and the Oneida Tribe would make millions on ‘safe’ incineration schemes with a ‘proof of concept’ prototype? Seems legit.
Of course, Ed ‘Dirtbag’ Delgado didn’t protect the Oneida Tribe from OSGC even when OSGC Board member Paul Linzmeyer spelled out specific steps to Yvonne Metivier for Ed to follow in an email whose subject was, “Actions ED should take with 7 Gen“:
Below are some public documents regarding Jefferson Co. Case No. 2012CV906, David J. Wolf vs. Arland Clean Fuels, LLC.
An authenticated copy of the Summons and Complaint of Plaintiff David J. Wolf having been served upon Defendant Arland Clean Fuels, LLC, and Defendant having failed to timely join issue, and upon Plaintiff’s Motion for Default Judgment;
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that judgment be entered in favor of Plaintiff and against Defendant in the principal amount of $250,000.00 plus interest in the amount of $7,430.08; plus interest calculated calculated from the date of the motion for default judgment through the date of entry of judgment at the per diem rate of $68.49 per day and thereafter to accrue at the post-judgment statutory rate; plus attorneys fees and costs in the amount of $599.90; with attorneys fees and costs in the costs in the amount of $599.90, and interest from the date hereto, and interest from the date hereof at the judgment rate.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED AND DECLARED that Plaintiff is entitled to receive quarterly future Return Payments from Defendant pursuant to the terms of the Royalty Agreement.
Yet even after David J. Wolf won his case, ACF/GCF motioned to vacate the Court’s judgment by claiming that they had not been properly served with process.
The Plaintiff’s Brief in Opposition to Defendant’s Motion to Vacate Default Judgment is rather devastating to ACF/GCF’s credibility.
First, Arland argues that mistake, inadvertance, or [in]excusable neglect exist such that would entitle it to a reopening of the judgment. Second, Arland asserts that it was not properly served, and therefore the Court lacks personal jurisdiction over it. Neither argument has merit. Moreover, Arland’s brief in support of its motion as well as the supporting affidavits are rife with, at best, misstatement of fact, and at worst misrepresentation to the Court. Thus, even if Arland were able to articulate a non-frivolous argument, which is not the case, the veracity of the facts it has alleged in support of its motion must be viewed with skepticism. Consequently, the Court should deny Arland’s motion to vacate the judgment to Plaintiff. …
The arguments of Arland are legally insufficient and are based upon false premises. First, Arland’s assertion that the parties failed “to put oral agreements into writing” is a falsehood. Mr. Decator and Plaintiff each independently confirmed to each other in writing that Arland’s deadline by which to file a responsive pleading was extended from January 10 to February 11, 2013. … The parties never had an agreement to extend the responsive pleading deadline indefinitely so long as Arland provided a settlement offer on or before February 11, 2013. If such an agreement had existed, it was Arland’s burden to produce some evidence thereof, and it has failed to do so.
Second, Arland[‘s] argument that it lacked sufficient time to obtain Wisconsin counsel is equally false. Arland was served on December 24, 2012, meaning that it had seven full weeks to obtain counsel before the February 11 responsive pleading deadline. Even if Arland did not begin making efforts to obtain Wisconsin counsel until Mr. Decator obtained the extension from Plaintiff on January 10, it still had a full 30 days to do so. When it finally decided to make an appearance in this matter on March 19 – almost three months after it was served – it became clear that Arland had access to Wisconsin counsel all along, as it is represented in this action by one of its own employees. In other words, Arland did not need time to “find” Wisconsin counsel because it already had Wisconsin counsel. Further belying Arland’s argument is that it has been more than five months since it was served and it has not retained alternative or local counsel.
Third, setting aside its failure to establish mistake, inadvertence, or inexcusable neglect, Arland’s motion fails in a more important respect. As set forth above, the second prong of the test for motions to vacate a judgment require that the moving party must have at least alleged a meritorious defense to Plaintiff’s claims. Here, although it bore the burden to do so, Arland has not alleged a meritorious defense. It’s only argument that comes close is that Arland’s new ownership was attempting to “decipher[] the contractual obligations” of the company. … That Arland may have been confused about its own obligations is not a defense. Moreover, it has been more than five months since Arland was served and thus it has had ample time to sift and winnow through any such confusion. Despite having been provided such opportunity at Plaintiff’s expense, Arland has yet to assert any meritorious defense to Plaintiff’s claims.
The June 4, 2013 Court transcript of the Motion Hearing regarding the Defendant’s Motion to Vacate Judgment is an absolute hoot and a must read to witness the witless hilarity of ACF/GCF’s legal ‘minds’ in action. Seriously, it’s like the draft of a screenplay of a tragi-comedic cautionary tale of what not to do as an attorney in a Wisconsin courtroom. Laughter ensues. For your pleasure:
Be sure to take a look at page 77 [the incorrect spelling ‘Decatur’ has been changed to the proper spelling ‘Decator’]:
MR. WEST: And there’s a bigger distinction here. That — in order to pursue that counterclaim, at least if it’s — you know, we don’t have all the facts here from Mr. Decator that relate to it, but my suspicion here is that it relates to equipment that may have been stored down at O’Hare Airport in Chicago or right outside of Chicago that involves other Wisconsin corporations; in fact, we did hear from Mr. Decator that it involves not just some crazy allegations against Mr. Wolf, but also allegations against other corporate entities either in Wisconsin or Illinois.
So now if we reopen the instant case we’re not just asking the Court to look at whether Mr. Wolf may have owned an interest in a company that may have engaged in a tortious act that might entitle Mr. Decator’s company to damages, because we’re talking about parties that extend far beyond the two parties that are in this case right now.
Now we’re going to end up — it looks like we’re going to end up having a third party in a company called Alliance, which is up in the DePere area, which I believe Mr. Dacator is referring to, the individuals who may have engaged in that tortious act. Because when you start getting into intentional torts such as theft, you have personal liability in addition to corporate.
There is a potential here that we may have to bring in a company called Generation Clean Fuels, which is, according to the filings by Mr. Camilli, is now a company that has somehow become the successor to Arland Clean Fuels. But when I look at the —
MR. CAMILLI: Your Honor, it’s the same entity, just a name change was effected.
THE COURT: Why don’t we just focus on this.
MR. WEST: And that’s the problem, Your Honor.
Judge William Hue dismissed the Motion to Vacate the Judgment and sent ACF/GCF home as losers owing the $258k+ judgment amount to Mr. Wolf, but there’s a question left hanging:
Was Atty. West confused by talk of a theft at “O’Hare” and assume the reference was to “O’Hare Airport” when the real reference was OSGC’s building at 1201 O’Hare Boulevard, Hobart, WI, which was leased to ACF/GCF and was where ACF/GCF’s illegal open flame incineration operation took place using Alliance/P2O Technologies’ ‘plastics-to-oil’ prototype?
Or was it a reference to OSGC subsidiary O’Hare, LLC, of which Kevin Cornelius is still the Registered Agent?
And who in their right mind would take these frivolous ACF/GCF clowns any more seriously than they do the buffoons at OSGC/GBRE or at Alliance Construction & Design/P2O Technologies?
See also:
